Appeals Court Rejects CIA Secrecy on Drones


A federal appeals court has just ruled that the CIA cannot continue to “neither confirm nor deny” the existence of the drone war, in a court case prompted by a Freedom of Information Act request by the American Civil Liberties Union.
“This is an important victory. It requires the government to retire the absurd claim that the CIA’s interest in the targeted killing program is a secret, and it will make it more difficult for the government to deflect questions about the program’s scope and legal basis,” said ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer, who argued the case before a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Appeals Court in September. “It also means that the CIA will have to explain what records it is withholding, and on what grounds it is withholding them.”
The ACLU’s FOIA request, filed in January 2010, seeks to learn when, where, and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, and how and whether the U.S. ensures compliance with international law restricting extrajudicial killings. In September 2011, the district court granted the government’s request to dismiss the case, accepting the CIA’s argument that it could not release any documents because even acknowledging the existence of the program would harm national security. The ACLU filed its appeal brief in the case exactly one year ago, and today the appeals court reversed the lower court’s ruling in a 3-0 vote.
“We hope that this ruling will encourage the Obama administration to fundamentally reconsider the secrecy surrounding the targeted killing program,” Jaffer said. “The program has already been responsible for the deaths of more than 4,000 people in an unknown number of countries. The public surely has a right to know who the government is killing, and why, and in which countries, and on whose orders. The Obama administration, which has repeatedly acknowledged the importance of government transparency, should give the public the information it needs in order to fully evaluate the wisdom and lawfulness of the government’s policies.”
You can read the unanimous 19-page decision here. The crux of the opinion: “It is implausible that the CIA does not possess a single document on the subject of drone strikes.”

Read More >>

More People Moving Into NYC Than Moving Out for the First Time in Over 60 Years

Mayor Bloomberg announced that more people are moving to New York City than are moving out for the first time since before 1950, according to the latest U.S. Census Bureau estimates released today. The estimates show New York City’s population has hit an all-time record high of 8,336,697. The city’s population increased by 161,564 since 2010 – about two percent in two years. This increase is among the largest two-year increases in recent decades.

The increase is fueled by a continuing increase in people moving to the city and a decline in the number of people leaving the city, as well as the continued growth in the surplus of births over deaths due to life expectancy in the city reaching new record highs. Each of the five boroughs registered gains in population. The largest percentage change occurred in Brooklyn, where the population grew by 2.4 percent or 60,900 people; followed by Manhattan (2.1 percent or 33,200 people); Queens (1.9 percent or 42,000 people); the Bronx (1.7 percent or 23,400 people); and Staten Island (0.4 percent or 2,000 people). New York City’s increase since April 2010 represented 84 percent of the total population increase in New York State, which slightly increased the city’s share of the state’s population, from 42.2 percent to 42.6 percent.

The city’s population has grown by more than 300,000 since Mayor Bloomberg took office. Earlier this week, the MTA announced that subway annual ridership for 2012 was 1.654 billion, the highest in 62 years. Average weekend ridership on the subway grew by three percent, matching the all-time historic high for weekend ridership set in 1946.

“For the first time since before 1950, more people are coming to New York City than leaving,” said Mayor Bloomberg. “We have many indicators of quality of life in the city – record low crime, record high tourism, record high life expectancy, record high graduation rates, record job growth and more – but there’s no better indication of the strength of our city than a record high population and a net population influx. People are voting with their feet.”



The all-time high population and net influx of residents for the first time in more than 60 years is one of a number of recent measures that show quality of life in New York City is better than ever:


Record Lows

Murders: 419 in 2012
Shootings: 1,353 in 2012
Incarceration rates: 474 inmates per 100,000 residents in New York City in 2011
Teen pregnancy: 72.6 pregnancies per 1,000 girls in 2010
Emergency response times: Six minutes and 30 seconds in 2012
Fire fatalities: 58 in 2012

Record Highs

Private-sector jobs:3.2 million
Life expectancy: Average of 80.9 years
Tourists: 52 million in 2012
High school graduation rate: 65 percent
Percentage of New Yorkers who live within a 10-minute walk of a park: 76 percent

The Census Bureau’s methodology for data gathered prior to 1950 does not allow for calculation of the influx of people to New York City. More information and analysis on the Census Estimates is available at www.nyc.gov.

Read More >>

Privacy backlash against CISPA cybersecurity bill gains traction


A petition to the White House asking the president to "stop" a controversial cybersecurity bill passes the 100,000 mark. The only problem: President Obama has already threatened to veto it.


House members during last year's floor debate on CISPA (clockwise from top left): Jared Polis, who warned it would "waive every single privacy law ever enacted"; Adam Schiff; Sheila Jackson Lee; Hank Johnson; Mike Rogers; Jan Schakowsky
(Credit: C-SPAN) 

It's not exactly a secret where President Obama stands on a controversial Republican-backed cybersecurity bill: he's already promised to veto it.

But a cadre of Internet activists opposed to the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act nevertheless created a petition to the president asking him to "stop CISPA" -- and it has crossed the 100,000-signature threshold necessary to secure a response from the administration.

In reality, there's little Obama can do to stop CISPA that he hasn't already done. The administration offered a stark warning in last year's veto threat, which talked up a competing Democrat-backed bill and predicted CISPA "will undermine the public's trust in the government as well as in the Internet by undermining fundamental privacy, confidentiality, civil liberties, and consumer protections."
CISPA is controversial because it overrules all existing federal and state laws by saying "notwithstanding any other provision of law," companies may share information "with any other entity, including the federal government." It would not, however, require them to do so.

That language has alarmed dozens of advocacy groups, including the American Library Association, the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Reporters Without Borders, which sent a letter (PDF) to Congress on Monday opposing CISPA. It says: "CISPA's information sharing regime allows the transfer of vast amounts of data, including sensitive information like Internet records or the content of e-mails, to any agency in the government."

If this sounds a bit familiar, it should. A similar coalition mounted an attempt to defeat CISPA last year. It failed: despite a presidential veto threat and criticism from Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and Ron Paul (R-Tex.), the House of Representatives approved the measure by a largely party line vote of 248 to 168. The bill did not, however, receive a vote in the Senate.

Undaunted, Rep. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican and influential chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, reintroduced CISPA (H.R. 624) last month along with Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, a Maryland Democrat. It's supported by AT&T, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Verizon, Intel, IBM, Comcast, and industry trade associations, according to letters of support posted on the committee's Web site.

Rogers' statement (PDF) in defense of CISPA says his legislation is necessary to head off cyberattacks from China and other sources:
This important legislation enables cyberthreat sharing within the private sector and, on a purely voluntary basis, with the government, all while providing strong protections for privacy and civil liberties. Voluntary information sharing with the federal government helps improve the government's ability to protect against foreign cyberthreats and gives our intelligence agencies tips and leads to help them find advanced foreign cyberhackers overseas. This in turn allows the government to provide better cyberthreat intelligence back to the private sector to help it protect itself.
One reason CISPA would be useful for government agencies hoping to conduct additional surveillance is that, under existing federal law, any person or company who helps someone "intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication" -- unless specifically authorized by law -- could face criminal charges. CISPA would overrule those privacy protections.
Technology trade associations, and a few tech companies, are backing CISPA not because they necessarily adore it, but because they view it as preferable to a Democrat-backed bill that's more regulatory.

But last year's Democratic bill, backed by then-Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), had privacy problems of its own. Civil liberties groups including the Electronic Frontier Foundation opposed Lieberman's bill, warning last year that it would have given "companies new rights to monitor our private communications and pass that data to the government."

After the Senate failed to approve either CISPA or Lieberman's bill, Obama responded last month by signing a cybersecurity executive order. It doesn't rewrite privacy laws, and instead expands "real time sharing of cyberthreat information" to companies that operate critical infrastructure, asks NIST to devise cybersecurity standards, and proposes a "review of existing cybersecurity regulation."

Read More >>

Internet Activist, a Creator of RSS, Is Dead at 26, Apparently a Suicide


Aaron Swartz, a wizardly programmer who as a teenager helped develop code that delivered ever-changing Web content to users and who later became a steadfast crusader to make that information freely available, was found dead on Friday in his New York apartment.

An uncle, Michael Wolf, said that Mr. Swartz, 26, had apparently hanged himself, and that a friend of Mr. Swartz’s had discovered the body. 

At 14, Mr. Swartz helped create RSS, the nearly ubiquitous tool that allows users to subscribe to online information. He later became an Internet folk hero, pushing to make many Web files free and open to the public. But in July 2011, he was indicted on federal charges of gaining illegal access to JSTOR, a subscription-only service for distributing scientific and literary journals, and downloading 4.8 million articles and documents, nearly the entire library. 

Charges in the case, including wire fraud and computer fraud, were pending at the time of Mr. Swartz’s death, carrying potential penalties of up to 35 years in prison and $1 million in fines.
“Aaron built surprising new things that changed the flow of information around the world,” said Susan Crawford, a professor at the Cardozo School of Law in New York who served in the Obama administration as a technology adviser. She called Mr. Swartz “a complicated prodigy” and said “graybeards approached him with awe.” 

Mr. Wolf said he would remember his nephew, who had written in the past about battling depression and suicidal thoughts, as a young man who “looked at the world, and had a certain logic in his brain, and the world didn’t necessarily fit in with that logic, and that was sometimes difficult.”
The Tech, a newspaper of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, reported Mr. Swartz’s death early Saturday. 

Mr. Swartz led an often itinerant life that included dropping out of Stanford, forming companies and organizations, and becoming a fellow at Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics.
He formed a company that merged with Reddit, the popular news and information site. He also co-founded Demand Progress, a group that promotes online campaigns on social justice issues — including a successful effort, with other groups, to oppose a Hollywood-backed Internet piracy bill. 

But he also found trouble when he took part in efforts to release information to the public that he felt should be freely available. In 2008, he took on PACER, or Public Access to Court Electronic Records, the repository for federal judicial documents. 

The database charges 10 cents a page for documents; activists like Carl Malamud, the founder of public.resource.org, have long argued that such documents should be free because they are produced at public expense. Joining Mr. Malamud’s efforts to make the documents public by posting legally obtained files to the Internet for free access, Mr. Swartz wrote an elegant little program to download 20 million pages of documents from free library accounts, or roughly 20 percent of the enormous database. 

The government shut down the free library program, and Mr. Malamud feared that legal trouble might follow even though he felt they had violated no laws. As he recalled in a newspaper account, “I immediately saw the potential for overreaction by the courts.” He recalled telling Mr. Swartz: “You need to talk to a lawyer. I need to talk to a lawyer.” 

Mr. Swartz recalled in a 2009 interview, “I had this vision of the feds crashing down the door, taking everything away.” He said he locked the deadbolt on his door, lay down on the bed for a while and then called his mother. 

The federal government investigated but did not prosecute.In 2011, however, Mr. Swartz went beyond that, according to a federal indictment. In an effort to provide free public access to JSTOR, he broke into computer networks at M.I.T. by means that included gaining entry to a utility closet on campus and leaving a laptop that signed into the university network under a false account, federal officials said. 

Mr. Swartz turned over his hard drives with 4.8 million documents, and JSTOR declined to pursue the case. But Carmen M. Ortiz, a United States attorney, pressed on, saying that “stealing is stealing, whether you use a computer command or a crowbar, and whether you take documents, data or dollars.” 

Founded in 1995, JSTOR, or Journal Storage, is nonprofit, but institutions can pay tens of thousands of dollars for a subscription that bundles scholarly publications online. JSTOR says it needs the money to collect and to distribute the material and, in some cases, subsidize institutions that cannot afford it. On Wednesday, JSTOR announced that it would open its archives for 1,200 journals to free reading by the public on a limited basis. 

Mr. Malamud said that while he did not approve of Mr. Swartz’s actions at M.I.T., “access to knowledge and access to justice have become all about access to money, and Aaron tried to change that. That should never have been considered a criminal activity.” 

Mr. Swartz did not talk much about his impending trial, Quinn Norton, a close friend, said on Saturday, but when he did, it was clear that “it pushed him to exhaustion. It pushed him beyond.”
Recent years had been hard for Mr. Swartz, Ms. Norton said, and she characterized him “in turns tough and delicate.” He had “struggled with chronic, painful illness as well as depression,” she said, without specifying the illness, but he was still hopeful “at least about the world.” 

Cory Doctorow, a science fiction author and online activist, posted a tribute to Mr. Swartz on BoingBoing.net, a blog he co-edits. In an e-mail, he called Mr. Swartz “uncompromising, principled, smart, flawed, loving, caring, and brilliant.” 

“The world was a better place with him in it,” he said. Mr. Swartz, he noted, had a habit of turning on those closest to him: “Aaron held the world, his friends, and his mentors to an impossibly high standard — the same standard he set for himself.” Mr. Doctorow added, however, “It’s a testament to his friendship that no one ever seemed to hold it against him (except, maybe, himself).” 

In a talk in 2007, Mr. Swartz described having had suicidal thoughts during a low period in his career. He also wrote about his struggle with depression, distinguishing it from sadness. 

“Go outside and get some fresh air or cuddle with a loved one and you don’t feel any better, only more upset at being unable to feel the joy that everyone else seems to feel. Everything gets colored by the sadness.”
When the condition gets worse, he wrote, “you feel as if streaks of pain are running through your head, you thrash your body, you search for some escape but find none. And this is one of the more moderate forms.”

Ravi Somaiya contributed reporting.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: January 12, 2013

An earlier version of this article incorrectly identified the police who arrested Mr. Swartz, and when they did so. The police were from Cambridge, Mass., not the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus force, and the arrest occurred two years before Mr. Swartz’s suicide, but not two years to the day.Read More >>

U.S.A.: Sorry, We’re Not Signing the ITU Treaty


The United States laid down the law on December 13, 2012: No dice, ITU.

An official statement by Terry Kramer sealed the deal, and the U.S. ambassador had this to say to those in attendance at the World Conference on International Telecommunications: “It is with a heavy heart and a sense of missed opportunities that the U.S. must communicate that it is not able to sign the agreement in the current form.”

The proposed ITU treaty revisions included many deeply troubling limitations to the Internet. If passed, the self-contained global network we know and love would become, essentially, answerable to the United Nations.

Hence, this is a big deal for the world. The U.S. and its allies drew a line in the sand, and this bold move has brought the entire summit to a screeching halt. For those who need a little refresher course, let’s look at what exactly the ITU is, who’s fighting back, and what all this means for the future of the Web.

The ITU Conference: What’s Going On

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is one part of the United Nations. Its just wrapped up a meeting hosted in Dubai, and almost 2,000 delegates from all over the globe were in attendance. The core goal of the meeting was to revise the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs). This treaty has been around since the 1980s, and according to a May 2012 Vanity Fair article, “The sprawling document, which governs telephone, television, and radio networks, may be extended to cover the Internet, raising questions about who should control it, and how.”

That grim forecast played out just as predicted in Dubai. A few countries offered up proposals that would allow the UN sweeping new power to regulate the Internet. However, the United States and its allies fiercely opposed such a plan. In fact, U.S. Ambassador Terry Kramer has been speaking out publicly against the inclusion of an Internet provision in the treaty even before the conference began.
According to Kramer in a recent briefing, “[The] U.S. cannot sign revised telecommunications regulations in their current form.” He went onto note, “[The] ITR should be a high-level document, and the scope of treaty does not extend to the Internet.” [Source: u-s-announces-will-not-sign-itu-treaty-period-7000008769/">ZDNet.com]

Kramer also pointed out, the “world community is at a crossroads of its collective view of the Internet. … [The] US will continue to uphold and advance the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance. … The Internet has given the world unimaginable economic and social benefits during these past 24 years – all without UN regulation.”
The U.S. and its allies essentially have taken the stance that the private sector and the government-free Internet at large have a say in this matter as well, and it’s not the UN’s place to dabble with the architecture of the Web.

The Future of the Free and Open Internet

Governments were not the only ones opposing the proposed ITU treaty revisions. Internet companies went to bat to fight the proposal as well, and Google was of course the most vocal (and influential) of the bunch.
Anyone remember Google’s very public protest against the SOPA/ PIPA bills earlier this year? The search giant is the ultimate champion of a free and open Internet. Yes, Google’s motives may stem from self-interest (and money), but it is nevertheless impressive to see a private company fight so adamantly for freedom. G even set up a special page on its own domain to inform the public about the dangers of the proposed revisions to the existing treaty:

Image 1:

Image 2:



Google’s rallying cry was perhaps an influential factor in the decision of the US and its allies to oppose the signing. According to Google, the proposed changes to the ITU treaty had the potential to increase censorship and threaten innovation as we know it on the Web. In fact, some of the suggested proposals would have even permitted oppressive governments to censor legitimate speech or, even worse, allow them to cut off Internet access entirely.

Google pointed out that other proposals involved requiring services like YouTube, Facebook, and Skype to pay brand new “tolls” simply to reach people across national borders.
The worst part about all of this was the secrecy with which the talks took place. The treaty and proposals were all kept very hush-hush, and we the people did not get a vote. Luckily, the U.S. and its allies stepped up and did the right thing. For now, the free and open Internet is safe. For now.

This doesn’t mean we’re out of the woods yet – expect plenty more wars like this one to play out more frequently as the years wear on. It’s up to the citizens of the world to make their voices heard to protect this beautiful virtual society of ours, the one we’ve all worked so hard to build together.
Read More >>

Iran Stages Cyber Warfare Drill Alongside Hormuz Naval Exercise



Iranian forces have conducted a cyber-warfare drill for the first time as their naval forces conducts major exercises in the Strait of Hormuz, testing a brand new air defense missile system.

The Iranian navy has staged a cyber-attack against the computer network of its defene forces in order to simulate a hack or a virus infiltration of a foreign aggressor, the English language Iran Daily reported, quoting Rear Admiral Amir Rastegari.

The Rear Admiral continued that the fake cyber-attack was successfully blocked by Iranian forces.

Tehran has developed military and civil cyber units in the past few years to counter cyber-attacks on its nuclear sites, oil and industrial facilities, its communications network and banking systems.

Tehran has allegedly been attacked by the Fame, Stuxnet and Gauss viruses, which managed to gather sensitive information about Iranian equipment and have hampered the work of its nuclear centrifuges. The US and Israel have been tacitly implicated in the virus attacks.


Naval exercises are also taking place in the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman, which Iranian military officials have stressed are for showing off the country’s “defensive naval capabilities and sending a message of peace and friendship to regional countries.”

Several submarine based missiles were tested during the attack, according to Iranian media sources. These included an Iranian made air defence system called Raad, or Thunder and domestically produced hovercraft.

Iran says the Raad system is more advanced than the Russian one it replaced and can knock out fighter jets, cruise missiles and drones at a height of up to 23 km.


Tehran has been trying to build up a self-sufficient military in particular its navy since 1992,as Iran believes any future conflict will be fought on the sea and in the air.

The drills come at the same time as the West is increasing pressure on Iran over its nuclear program which it suspects is aimed at producing a bomb. Iran insists it is purely for the peaceful production of electricity.

The west has slapped sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program which they maintain is for the production of nuclear weapons. The west argues that imposing sanctions will make it harder for Iran to acquire the money and materials to develop a bomb. Iran has threatened to retaliate by closing the Strait of Hormuz.

December 31, 2012

Read More >>

Share

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More